Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 37-2-201 (2026)

Nonliability -- Evidential Privilege -- Application To Nonprofit Corporations

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 37. PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS

Part 2. Nonliability for Peer Review -- Confidentiality of Medical Assistance Program Information

Nonliability -- Evidential Privilege -- Application To Nonprofit Corporations

37-2-201. Nonliability -- evidential privilege -- application to nonprofit corporations. (1) A member of a utilization review or medical ethics review committee of a hospital or long-term care facility or of a professional utilization committee, peer review committee, medical ethics review committee, or professional standards review committee of a society composed of persons licensed to practice a health care profession is not liable in damages to any person for any action taken or recommendation made within the scope of the functions of the committee if the committee member acts without malice and in the reasonable belief that the action or recommendation is warranted by the facts known to the member after reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter for which the action is taken or a recommendation is made.

(2) The proceedings and records of professional utilization, peer review, medical ethics review, and professional standards review committees are not subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any proceeding. However, information otherwise discoverable or admissible from an original source is not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any proceeding merely because it was presented during proceedings before the committee, nor is a member of the committee or other person appearing before it to be prevented from testifying as to matters within the individual's knowledge, but the individual may not be questioned about the individual's testimony or other proceedings before the committee or about opinions or other actions of the committee or any member of the committee.

(3) This section also applies to any member, agent, or employee of a nonprofit corporation engaged in performing the functions of a peer review, medical ethics review, or professional standards review committee.

History: En. 66-1052 by Sec. 1, Ch. 226, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 267, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 66-1052; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 22, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 380, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1353, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2009 · leading case: Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 2008 MT 453, 199 P.3d 810.
Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 2008 MT 453, 199 P.3d 810. · cites it 4× “James asks us to determine whether the Board complied with its Bylaws in denying Dr.”
Hughes v. Pullman, 2001 MT 216, 36 P.3d 339. · cites it 3× “Section 37-2-201, MCA. ¶29 Hughes argues that the Defendants cannot invoke the immunity offered in subsection 1 without waiving the privilege against discovery found in subsection 2.”
Hughes v. St. James Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 2009 MT 190. · cites it 2× “¶ 4 Hughes argues extensively that the peer review statute, § 37-2-201, MCA, is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to him.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.